Thursday, June 6, 2002
By DENISE ZOLDAN, dczoldan@naplesnews.com
Just because a state agency isn't demanding that golf courses be removed from
greenbelts in Collier County's rural fringe growth plan, it doesn't mean they
should remain, a majority of Environmental Advisory Council members said
Wednesday.
"I would prefer to see Collier County do the best job possible rather than
just what is required," said Erica Lynne, an EAC member.
The panel voted 3-2 to add three changes to the rural fringe plan, to which
the state Department of Community Affairs registered nine objections and 12
recommendations on May 23.
The environmental panel was the first group presented with the state agency's
objections and the county staff's responses. County planning commissioners will
hear the same information today.
Collier County commissioners will cast a final vote on the growth plan and
recommended changes June 18. The growth plan then will be shipped back to DCA
for final approval. The DCA oversees the state-mandated growth plans for
Florida's 67 counties.
Collier's growth plan for the 93,000-acre area dubbed the rural fringe from
Collier Boulevard through Golden Gate Estates is an outgrowth of a 1999 order
from Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet. That order requires the county to do a
better job protecting wetlands and wildlife. The order froze most new
development in rural Collier County until new growth rules are in effect.
A separate growth plan stemming from the same order is under way for some
200,000 acres around Immokalee.
Discussing the Golden Gate Estates plan Wednesday, the county environmental
panel agreed with most of the staff recommendations to change the plan to gain
DCA approval.
But the panel also sought a tougher stance on golf courses.
The DCA recommended that Collier not allow golf courses in the greenbelts set
aside for conservation or wildlife habitat, but the agency didn't formally
object to them, meaning the county doesn't have to comply. The staff
recommendations included no changes to where golf courses could be located.
"Just because the DCA isn't forcing us to do something ... doesn't mean we
should be proud of this," Lynne said.
In a letter to the county staff, DCA chief of planning Charles Gauthier
wrote:
"It is important that the county carefully considers and adequately addresses
the issues raised in our objections. Our comments are advisory in nature and
intended to assist the county in further strengthening the amendments."
On the topic of golf courses in greenbelts, the DCA said: "Allowing golf
courses within the greenbelts can lead to the proliferation of golf courses in
the rural area and may defeat the purpose of the greenbelts. Golf courses and
its attendant uses represent a form of development which are generally more
suitable in urban areas."
A majority of the environmental panel members also recommended against
allowing sewer lines and sewer lift stations in conservation and protection
areas, something the DCA didn't mention.
Bob Mulhere, the former planning director for the county who now works for
the planning company RWA and who was hired by the county to see the process
through, said prohibiting sewer lines in conservation areas could mean
installing more pipes to reach developable areas.
The backbone of the rural fringe plan is a Transfer of Development Rights, or
TDR, program that would limit growth in parts of the rural fringe. In return,
landowners in those areas — called sending areas — would be able to sell their
development rights to developers who could use them to build more homes in less
environmentally sensitive areas — called receiving areas.
Sending areas could separate the receiving areas from already developed
sections of the county where sewer lines exist, meaning sewer lines might need
to cross sending areas (conservation areas) to reach receiving areas.
The EAC also wanted more restrictions on what could be done with agricultural
land in sending areas to protect natural resources.
The EAC chose not to change, from conditional-use to permitted use, oil
drilling and exploration rights in sending and conservation areas. That change
had been requested by Ernie Cox, attorney for Barron Collier Properties and
Collier Enterprises. Adopting the change would mean Collier County would become
first in line to take such rights away from the property owners; federal and
state agencies now head that list, Cox said.
Other staff changes proposed in response to DCA objections include:
n Providing a map identifying
property that will be eligible for density blending, placing a limit on the
amount of land eligible for density blending and providing an analysis of the
land suitable for density blending. Density blending allows mixed uses.
n Defining the rules that will
dictate the intensity of commercial and industrial uses allowed on
agricultural/rural land.
n Spelling out the specifics on
the types of density and intensity to be allowed in receiving lands and rural
villages rather than deferring to the Land Development Code.
n Deleting from the plan
language that allows the County Commission to change the exchange rates for the
TDRs, moving them up or down.
n Removing from the receiving
areas land that is located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas (flood-prone).
n Further defining the
guidelines for where rural villages may be located.
n Changing from 1 unit per 3
acres to zero the number of residences allowed on publicly owned conservation
land. Allowing oil and mineral extraction as a conditional-use only.
n Defining the exact uses
allowed in Natural Resource Protection Areas.
The Planning Commission meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. today in the County
Commission chambers at the Collier County Government Center on U.S. 41 East.